Did EPA Suppress Global Warming Study?

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,798
Likes
62,509
#1
#2
#2
I'll admit that one of the things that has gone a loooong way towards keeping me skeptical about AGW is how politically driven the subject has become. In truth, to say anything is "political" has now become roughly analogous to "can't be trusted" in many, if not most people's minds. The ravings of people like Gore and Hansen force me to dig a foxhole on the issue as well as hearing such terms as "holocaust denier" and "treason" being bandied about to describe anyone not in lockstep with their views.

It's a credibility thing. Even if I come across what looks like some real science that supports at least some aspect of AGW there is a fully automated mental response on my part that believes that not only is it extremely likely that anything and everything that can be done to the science to prop up it's validity (even to the point of exaggeration) has been done but anything and everything that might call it's validity into question will be watered down, buried or dismissed.
 
#3
#3
try getting funding to do a study to try to prove that global warming is not caused by humans.
 
#4
#4
hndog609 said:
I'll admit that one of the things that has gone a loooong way towards keeping me skeptical about AGW is how politically driven the subject has become. In truth, to say anything is "political" has now become roughly analogous to "can't be trusted" in many, if not most people's minds. The ravings of people like Gore and Hansen force me to dig a foxhole on the issue as well as hearing such terms as "holocaust denier" and "treason" being bandied about to describe anyone not in lockstep with their views.

It's a credibility thing. Even if I come across what looks like some real science that supports at least some aspect of AGW there is a fully automated mental response on my part that believes that not only is it extremely likely that anything and everything that can be done to the science to prop up it's validity (even to the point of exaggeration) has been done but anything and everything that might call it's validity into question will be watered down, buried or dismissed.
Click to expand...

Great posts and it sums up my feelings as well. As I have seen reports come out much of what had been reported was either called into question by other studies or completely shown as flawed (and some times intentionally misleading). For example some of the data that Gore used to show how sea levels were rising was taken in a major cities port area that was known to be sinking.

Even though all the other satellite measurements showed no real increase in ocean levels, the data from this subduction zone was superimposed onto the the satellite information to show an increase in the levels. It is stuff like this that makes me think there is an agenda here that I do not trust.

Every scientific study that is done should be treated equally but the more I look into it it becomes obvious that data that supports man made global warming is being advocated while studies that show otherwise are largely ignored. This is just my observation and thoughts on the subject, these thoughts may be wrong but this is how it appears to me.
 
#5
#5
hndog609 said:
I'll admit that one of the things that has gone a loooong way towards keeping me skeptical about AGW is how politically driven the subject has become. In truth, to say anything is "political" has now become roughly analogous to "can't be trusted" in many, if not most people's minds. The ravings of people like Gore and Hansen force me to dig a foxhole on the issue as well as hearing such terms as "holocaust denier" and "treason" being bandied about to describe anyone not in lockstep with their views.

It's a credibility thing. Even if I come across what looks like some real science that supports at least some aspect of AGW there is a fully automated mental response on my part that believes that not only is it extremely likely that anything and everything that can be done to the science to prop up it's validity (even to the point of exaggeration) has been done but anything and everything that might call it's validity into question will be watered down, buried or dismissed.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of this. Ironically, Al Gore both legitimized and harmed the debate.

TT has been the clearest voice on GW that I've paid attention to.
 
#6
#6
I read through (briefly) the critique of a draft of this report on RealClimateChange.org.

The report was trashed as was the author. In truth, it may be a crappy report but reading the critique and commentary it's clear that this is much bigger than science. Skeptics are repeatedly called deniers and liars. They claim to be open-minded to new evidence but when you preface it with the term "denier", it's hard to imagine you are open-minded.
 
#8
#8
volinbham said:
Agree with most of this. Ironically, Al Gore both legitimized and harmed the debate.

TT has been the clearest voice on GW that I've paid attention to.
Click to expand...

I'm about convinced Gore is a loon. I mean this in the serious way, like he's not quite 100% in the game. Maybe not Manbearpig crazy but genuinely a bit troubled.

TT is THE guy in my mind for a reasoned and educated voice on AGW.
 
#9
#9
I am conflicted on the issue, as well, primarily because I worry about the consequences if we don't err on the side of caution.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
I am conflicted on the issue, as well, primarily because I worry about the consequences if we don't err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

The government should enter our private residences to err on the side of caution!

:banghead2:

:mf_surrender:

:furious3:

:the_finger:
 
#12
#12
VBH and hndog - are you referring to me when you say TT? If so, I really appreciate those comments ... if not, then screw you guys. :) I'll also give a shout out to IP, who knows his stuff...

I read about this the night of .. or the night before (can't remember) ... the House vote. The report by the EPA economist (who is also a trained scientist...he has a BS in Physics, I think) isn't very good, there's no doubt. However, I'm sure that there are other "not-so-well-formed" comments that were allowed in. The main complaint by the EPA appeared to be that they were not trying to argue the merits of climate change science, but rather lay out the case for endangerment. That argument seems weird to me - but maybe that is because I don't understand fully what the EPA process for deciding on endangerment is. Depending on what that process was, this sort of report may have been unnecessary/inappropriate. On the other hand, I would think that if man isn't linked to global warming, then there is no endangerment to find....so I think that the paper could have been included in the comments...even if it wasn't that well-prepared and not always undeniably correct. Again, maybe that is just me not understanding how these processes work.

I think that the most solid point by the EPA economist who prepared the report is that the EPA should be wary of making an endangerment finding which relies SOLELY on the IPCC 4th assessment report. It was argued whether or not this was even allowed by the EPA's own rules - but I think that it probably is. Regardless, that is not great policy. They would have been better off to take the IPCC's review of the scientific literature and use that to build their case rather than point to it as the tome-to-not-be-questioned.

In some ways this has played out more like a battle of who has the better webblog between realclimate and wattsupwiththat than an actual issue....
 
#13
#13
Agreed, TT. The actual scientific points are lost in the squabbles over the implications, either way.
 
#14
#14
TennTradition said:
VBH and hndog - are you referring to me when you say TT? If so, I really appreciate those comments ... if not, then screw you guys. :) I'll also give a shout out to IP, who knows his stuff...

I read about this the night of .. or the night before (can't remember) ... the House vote. The report by the EPA economist (who is also a trained scientist...he has a BS in Physics, I think) isn't very good, there's no doubt. However, I'm sure that there are other "not-so-well-formed" comments that were allowed in. The main complaint by the EPA appeared to be that they were not trying to argue the merits of climate change science, but rather lay out the case for endangerment. That argument seems weird to me - but maybe that is because I don't understand fully what the EPA process for deciding on endangerment is. Depending on what that process was, this sort of report may have been unnecessary/inappropriate. On the other hand, I would think that if man isn't linked to global warming, then there is no endangerment to find....so I think that the paper could have been included in the comments...even if it wasn't that well-prepared and not always undeniably correct. Again, maybe that is just me not understanding how these processes work.

I think that the most solid point by the EPA economist who prepared the report is that the EPA should be wary of making an endangerment finding which relies SOLELY on the IPCC 4th assessment report. It was argued whether or not this was even allowed by the EPA's own rules - but I think that it probably is. Regardless, that is not great policy. They would have been better off to take the IPCC's review of the scientific literature and use that to build their case rather than point to it as the tome-to-not-be-questioned.

In some ways this has played out more like a battle of who has the better webblog between realclimate and wattsupwiththat than an actual issue....
Click to expand...

I was referring to you and the rest of you post is an example why. :hi:
 
#17
#17
Chemvol said:
Trooper Taylor! Get with the program, IP. * chestbump*

:p



+1

As a scientist but not a climatologist, I have found TT's commentary on GW both professionally illuminating and refreshingly politics-free.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
#18
#18
Looks like there is more controversy brewing over climate change and those pushing the agenda. I don't know what exactly this means, maybe nothing comes of it but I will say that the way in which this agenda has become politicized by both sides should make Americans very skeptical of the motives involved.

I don't intend to rehash the debates we started long ago but it appears that at least according to some there seems to be some wrong doing or agenda pushing at the expense of facts. I still believe we need to study the effects of our impact on the climate and balance that with the impact cap and trade and other taxes and barriers we put up against our economy.

I would look forward to those with better insight and knowledge commenting on this story.

Key GOP Senator Pushes for Probe Into Climate Change Research - FOXNews.com
 
#19
#19
The release of the emails among the AGW proponents is an interesting twist. Their supporters see absolutely nothing untoward in the content but at a minimum it shows their disdain for and attempts to silence researchers who don't support their theories.

It also points out how much of what we "know" about temperatures is based on the same data set.
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
The release of the emails among the AGW proponents is an interesting twist. Their supporters see absolutely nothing untoward in the content but at a minimum it shows their disdain for and attempts to silence researchers who don't support their theories.

It also points out how much of what we "know" about temperatures is based on the same data set.
Click to expand...

There is another story I read on the subject that quotes some of the e-mails, from those e-mails a better case for manipulation and suppression of data can be made. That particular story painted a much worse picture of the story.
 
#21
#21
Climate Change is REAL, Global Warming caused by man is a myth. Weather patterns over the course of the past few thousand years prove that, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop getting all their info from the liberal media or talk radio. Google is a helluva drug.
 
#22
#22
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Climate Change is REAL, Global Warming caused by man is a myth. Weather patterns over the course of the past few thousand years prove that, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to stop getting all their info from the liberal media or talk radio. Google is a helluva drug.
Click to expand...

Simple and true.

Do you think there is a hidden agenda behing global warming? Nah, couldn't be.
 
#25
#25
“It’s a wake-up call for America.”

Inhofe says that the e-mails, which reveal climate scientists working together to present a united front on anthropogenic global warming, are the “final redemption” for climate-change skeptics.

“The notion that these scientists tried to declare the science settled for personal reasons is disgraceful,” says Inhofe. “They were purposefully misrepresenting the facts. They tried to make America believe and it worked, for a time. Even my grandkids came home filled with this stuff, saying that ‘anthropogenic gases cause global warming.’ I reminded them that these things go in cycles. We’ve had warming then cooling, then warming and cooling again. I’m delighted that people are discovering that the science has been cooked for a long period of time.”

Inhofe points out that the CRU data were used in the 2007 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was subsequently used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as it prepared its guidelines on carbon emissions. These connections, he says, are very worrisome for the American taxpayer.

“There are tremendous economic ramifications to what these guys were trying to do,” says Inhofe. “The IPCC, for years, has been costing the government so much money, and now, wasted time in trying to pass faulty legislation based on bad data.”

.................................

Following the worldwide attention on the leaked CRU e-mails, Inhofe says that he still plans to go to the Copenhagen conference on climate change next month. He also says that cap-and-trade legislation is “dead in the Senate.”

“I’ll be going to Copenhagen to expose the truth,” says Inhofe. “I’ve been ridiculed for the past six years, yet we were right all along.” (The Oklahoman led a similar “truth squad” in 2003, during the U.N.’s climate-change negotiations in Milan, Italy.) Supporters of cap-and-trade who also plan on attending, such as Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), “are in denial,” he adds.

“My message will be easier to deliver, that’s for sure,” says Inhofe. “When I was in Milan, it was kind of humorous. I had put out a statement calling anthropogenic global warming a hoax and they put up my picture on ‘Wanted’ posters around the city. I tore them down, brought them home, and auctioned them at fundraisers.”

“It’s different this time,” says Inhofe. “We went to Milan with little credibility, saying that this thing is rigged, that the science is cooked. We didn’t have much to back us up in 2003. I know that Boxer and Kerry would try to misrepresent the state of cap-and-trade in the Senate. I can hear their speech now saying it’s not dead — that’s it’s passed out of a committee.

But look, it’s dead. It’s not going to pass. .........
Click to expand...



Hide the cooling!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top